View full case

REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS

FACTS:

The Committee on Privatization approved the negotiated sale of 90% of the shares of stock of Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC) to "G" Holdings, Inc. After a series of negotiations, a purchase and sale agreement was executed on October 2, 1992. A disagreement arose regarding the commencement of installment payments, leading "G" Holdings to file a complaint for specific performance and damages against the Republic of the Philippines. The trial court ruled in favor of "G" Holdings and ordered the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to execute the Document of Transfer and deliver the shares and notes to "G" Holdings upon full payment. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) instead of the trial court. No other remedy was pursued until the Republic filed a petition for annulment of judgment, claiming abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the case. The CA dismissed the petition, finding that there was no extrinsic fraud and that the trial court had jurisdiction. The Republic now appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision prior to the submission of petitioner's formal offer of evidence and without ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered by respondent.

  2. Whether or not the failure of the Solicitor General to file the notice of appeal with the proper forum amounted to extrinsic fraud.

RULING:

  1. The petition lacks the required imprimatur from the Office of the Solicitor General and is thus dismissible on this ground. The general rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. However, the Court did proceed to address the issues raised in the petition.

  2. The Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. While it may be irregular for the trial court to render its decision prior to the submission of formal offers of evidence and without ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered by the respondent, this is an error of judgment and not jurisdiction. Such error could have been corrected through an appeal, which was not availed of by the petitioner. Therefore, the decision of the trial court became final.

  3. The Court also held that the failure of the Solicitor General to file the notice of appeal with the proper forum did not amount to extrinsic fraud. There was no connivance between the respondent and the Republic's counsel in the commission of the error. Thus, the petition for annulment of judgment was properly dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

  • Errors of judgment by the trial court are correctable through an appeal, while errors of jurisdiction go to the very authority of the court to act.